Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

chola · Post by **chola** » 23 Sep 2017 17:06

Prithwiraj wrote:Is this not repeat of another Soviet Union? In order to outspend US - they eventually ran out of gas and the economy collapsed. Even though the case is a little different with China is probably holding second biggest foreign exchange reserve after US

In a single word, no.

The USSR was a military power in every sense of the word. Cheen is a economic power in every sense of that word.

I’ll take two examples, tanks and cars.

USSR at its height had 60,000 tanks (to the US’s measly 13,000!) Imagine the treasure going into that while the proliteriat was waiting in line for soap and bread. Cheen even today has just 7,000.

But what Cheen does have is a domestic market of 28M cars — the global standard for discretionary spending (meaning non-essential surplus spending or “wealth.”) The USSR made and sold about 2M cars per year. The waiting list for a car at the time was about 10 years.

The US — by far was the greatest market for cars for practically the entire history of the auto until 2008 — is a distant second to Cheen at 17M.

This fact alone tells us that Cheen is a historically potent consumer market with a historically massive industrial base geared towards that consumer market.

The USSR was the opposite with an estimated 50% of its economy based on its MIC. That was how it manage to produce 40,000 nukes at its height. Impossible to even fathom the resources going into that. Cheen today has a few hundreds.

So when we come to shipbuilding, it is the same story. Cheen is the largest shipbuilder in the world for commercial shipping which consequently is needed by the world’s largest trading nation. The end result is the 83 warships that the PLAN got is a nice but small drop in the bucket of the 30-40 MILLION tons (a large percentage for exports earning forex) built by its shipyards in any single year. Remember, a DDG is around 7K tons.

PRC might collapse in some way or another but it won’t be like the USSR in overspending for its military or building weapons.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 23 Sep 2017 21:41

Rakesh wrote: High-speed production: Chinese navy built 83 ships in just eight years
https://theprint.in/2017/09/20/chinese- ... s-8-years/

Mass production of ships is one thing. But simulataneously developing and training crews is another. You would need atleast 2 no. Sets of crew and ideally 3 nos sets to account for deployment, training and resting period. Do the math. Now check the capacity of naval training centers in China. Do they even have that many nos. of quality instructors and trainers.

Then you to integrate these newly minted vessels and their crews in your operational scenarios. For that you will have to conduct regular exercises. Remember naval job is not just about sailing. It is about fighting while sailing. The question is "Are chinese moving ahead in this regard?"

Just raw numbers of vessels being manufactures. I am not that impressed. 'Cause I know China is a manufacturing power and if it comes to that they can even manufacture 830 ships in the same time period. But what about actual warfighting?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Sep 2017 21:50

^ are you suggesting that these are just ghost ships with no crews? A simple search on Google tells me that the plan conducted at least 3 exercises in places as far away as the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas in the past few months.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 23 Sep 2017 21:53

not necessarily Cain-ji, but darshhan saar has raised a good point.

How effective are their crews? May be they are Crap, may be they are Uber. How do we find that out? Is naval fighting as simple as pressing buttons to release missiles from ships and submarines?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 23 Sep 2017 22:30

I understand. But the point I was trying to make is that this would not be something that wouldn't have occurred to Chinese planners. It would be dangerous for the Indian Navy to work with such assumptions.

I have noticed that this is a typical approach towards Chinese milestones, be it wrt to the j10, stealth fighters or it's carriers. Point is that they now have these platforms and if they don't have fully trained crews for such platforms, surely they will as time passes.

While the importance of training and operating hardware goes without saying, it is a rather impressive and alarming situation when an enemy demonstrates the ability to churn out ultra modern platforms en masse. It won't take them long to figure out how to use these assuming they don't already.

As far as the expertise of Chinese crews goes, they seem to be engaging in a number of exercises very regularly, esp. In joint exercises.... From rimpac to those with burma and tsp.Here is an interesting article that sho://m.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-05/chinese-navy-trains-and-takes-risks
[/url]

Effectiveness in combat rests on proficiency in employing the tools at hand, and the PLAN understands that fact. The past ten years have seen a major improvement in the scope and complexity of PLAN training that has paralleled the expansion in its missions, operations, and capabilities.

But again this is not the point. The point is that we have a rather aggressive country that seems to have mastered the task of producing advanced weapons in large numbers and quick time. Something that India unfortunately is not very good at.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 23 Sep 2017 23:05

Marko, It is well known that China is a manufacturing powerhouse. I am actually pleasantly surprised that they inducted just 83 ships in eight years which is far less than their shipbuilding capacity would suggest.

The point is training and outfitting crews plus developing warfighting leadership is not a trivial task and is in many ways much more tougher than mass production of vessels. Warfighting leadership cannot be mass produced except .... during war time.

This problem is made even more complicated due to the fact that China is totalitarian country and rest be assured nothing is more frowned upon in a dictatorship than a soldier/sailor/airman capable of taking initiative without waiting for explicit orders/instructions. In 20th century warfare this might have worked, but in this century a soldier who can take initiative, is resourceful, has the ability to think and decide independently will reign supreme.

chola · Post by **chola** » 24 Sep 2017 01:23

As my post says, the US Navy, based on what it knows of operating a very large Navy, believes that the PLAN cannot possibly train enough crew properly for the amount of ships the Chinese are building and inducting.

The example given was a 4000 ton frigate (Type 54A) that was put to sea on 7 month deployment just six weeks after commission. It would take USN a year to wring out a similar class of ship.

So the USN poses the question why? The answer is that for their strategy of “salami slicing” the ability to fight is not as important as the simple ability to sail to and stay on site to create de facto jurisdiction of an area. The salami strategy is based on cutting off and stealing thin enough slices that makes war hard to declare.

So just knowing that the PLAN are not training and crewing their ships properly for warfighting doesn’t help you against them if you are not fighting a war.

So the proper strategy might actually be to actively seek war with them and force them from planting a presence before they could subsume you with numbers. If you think being outnumbered is bad in war, it is worse in oeace because you can’t use firepower to attrite.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Sep 2017 01:53

Rakesh, you got it.
Now why is Chinese ans US navy being discussed here?

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 24 Sep 2017 10:38

Below image of ship being loaded with Rohingya relief material.

What are the 2 large concave deflection barriers on left & right. Or are they some radar antenna

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 24 Sep 2017 11:04

Deflectors for land clearing rockets.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 24 Sep 2017 11:32

Unable to search for such a thing on google

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 24 Sep 2017 11:43

AdityaM wrote:Below image of ship being loaded with Rohingya relief material.

What are the 2 large concave deflection barriers on left & right. Or are they some radar antenna

Those are the baffles used to protect the rest of the ship from the exhaust gases of the L&Ts WM-18 rockets.

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 24 Sep 2017 11:55

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKbfzW9UIAAb0j8.jpg:large

Third Scorpene Submarine INS Karanj soon to sail out for trials

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 24 Sep 2017 15:56

Thank you

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 24 Sep 2017 17:59

Suddenly we are adding more scorpenes. Are we over the hump as far as Subs are concerned for Navy? If not will we stop at 6 for a sub whose capability has been exposed?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 24 Sep 2017 21:30

We are in a bad way for submarines. We have not seen any indication of a new orders beyond the 6. The P 75i is a mystery at the moment. So in the next few years unless a decision is made now. The MDL sub line will go idle.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 24 Sep 2017 21:54

prasannasimha wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKbfzW9UIAAb0j8.jpg:large

Third Scorpene Submarine INS Karanj soon to sail out for trials

That picture is not of INS Karanj. Third is not yet in water. Today's news refers to launching of the boat by year end.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Sep 2017 23:22

That is the Kalvari onlee

prasannasimha · Post by **prasannasimha** » 25 Sep 2017 10:07

Ok saw it on Twitter

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 25 Sep 2017 11:57

The best way to go forward wrt submarines is to order 6 more scorpenes. The ecosystem is all set. Manpower is trained and ready. They are being manufactured at a steady rate. Why not utilise all this for some more nos. of scorpenes? Let us extend the production.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Sep 2017 12:04

"Cost,cost,cost." Been saying this for aeons ,that this factor will be the most important in almost all our def. deals,barring SSBNs and N-subs.

With the commissioning of the Kalvari,our first Scorpene, asigh of relief can be heard in many quarters as this hugely delayed programme is finally delivering results. The critical need of the IN,more subs,etc., has bene debated endlessly on BRF so I won't go there for now,except to say that even these subs come without AIP systems.In the race to acquire sufficient UW and ASW capability to deal with the combined Sino-Pak UW threat,the news of a 3rd Akula SSGN in the pipeline is welcome news,as welll as that of the next SSBN about to be launched.

Nevertheless,the surface fleet is in dire straits as well since there are few ASW MR helos available. Over 200 helos of diff. types are reqd. as of yesterday by the INMost surface combatants sail without or with half their ASW helo complement,a v.dangerous matter since it was a Paki sub that sank INS Khukri in '71,a small WW2 era light frigate. Given thew acute shortage of funds at the moment,with the economy in a huge slowdown,talk of injecting funds to kick-start the economy again,funds for capital acquisitions for the services will be affected.Therefroe each servcie must make iot clear to the GOI what its top priorities are. The navy needs apart from the subs,ASW helos next. These will be the workhorses of the surface fleet to prosecute subs that manage to ingress into the IOR ,or are already here on a permanent basis operating out of Paki ports,etc.

There appears to be a debate over acquiring US-2s or ASW helos first.frankly,this should be a "no-contest".The Amphibs come without any ASW capability whatsoever,fit only for SAR. Spending such a large amt. of money when the current ASW helo crisis exists,would be a great mistake. Our surface fleet would be veritable sitting ducks unless we possess these ASW helos since anti-ship torpedoes have developed with even greater capabilty regarding range,endurance,wake-homing,and lethality.This allows subs to make attacks at much greater distances than before,40-50Km away.Unless we have enough ASW helos to help triangulate detection and location of enemy subs and prosecute them at significant distances from the surface fleet,task force,etc.,the subs would have a great advantage. A much smaller buy of US-2s may be poss.,but even this buy musts ee that the amphuibs come equipped with ASW capability (sensors,weaponry) which will add to their cost.The need of the hour is a swift selection of the reqd. helos and sealing the deal.AS for MCM vessels.WE are defenceless against a concerted mine warfare asymmetric warfare campaign by our enemies with again handful of 30 yr. old minesweepers in hand and the diabolic efforts of babudom to scuttle the new deal woith SoKo for the same.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 749586.ece

Navy’s dilemma: US-2 planes or helicopters?
Dinakar Peri NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

On land and sea:The Japanese US-2 amphibious aircraft will add to the Navy’s fighting skills.Special Arrangement
India, Japan continue discussions for purchase of US-2 amphibious aircraft

The Navy’s urgent priorities include helicopters and minesweepers, while India continue discussions with Japan for buying the US-2 amphibious aircraft, naval officials say.

“The US-2 is a good capability addition, but it is not a top priority. There is a constraint of resources and there are other things on that list. The Navy is in urgent need of helicopters, minesweepers and submarines among others,” one naval source says.

India and Japan have been negotiating a deal for 12 ShinMaywa-built US-2 amphibious aircraft at a cost of around $1.3 billion, but differences over the pricing offset clause have held it up.

Joint statement

The joint statement issued after talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his visiting Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, earlier this month noted Japan’s “readiness to provide its state-of-the-art US-2 amphibian aircraft”, and the two governments decided to “continue their discussions in this regard”.

While the aircraft will be a great force multiplier for the Navy, they will divert precious resources from other pressing needs. Of these, the most pressing need is for helicopters, which are crucial in clearing way for ships and are also the first responders in any emergency on the seas.

The inventory

The Navy’s inventory currently consists of Chetaks, Russian Kamov-28 and 33s, six Sikorsky UH-3Hs, Seaking 42B & 42C and some advanced light helicopters. Except the last, all others are of 1980s vintage.

Surprisingly, while the force is inducting modern stealth ships, most of the decks lie vacant because of a lack of copters. Beyond the off-shore patrol vessels, all ships can accommodate two helicopters each. To meet these, there is a requirement of over 123 naval multi-role helicopters.

“These helicopters are needed to sanitise the area around the high-value assets and carry out attacks against enemy submarines at stand-off ranges,” an officer says.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Sep 2017 12:11

PS: Extending the Scorpene line is passe.The subs' secrets have been exposed,they have no AIP system,cannot carry even Klubs let alone BMos,only SM-39s which Pak also possesses! The IN too appears not to be too enamoured of extra Scorpenes which come at excessive cost. One could be able to acquire almost 2 Amur/Ladas,2+ Kilos for the cost of just one Scorpene. German U-boats also a mite cheaper.The best option is to acquire two designs,the "best of the west" for the P-75I contest,and another new line of the best Ru conv. AIP boat too.Mod. Amurs or the new Kalina,supposedly in thew works.These can be acquired in a G-to-G deal where these new Ru subs will steadily replace all ancient Kilos.Say 6 Scorpenes and 6 U-boats plus 12 Ru subs,KIlos/whatever,will give us a total fo 24 conv. subs, a good number to assist say 3-4 SSGNs,6 SSNs and around 6 SSBNs.It will give us 40+ subs,a good number to deal with both China and Pak.

PS:JUst following on with the CV debate,I give a small example of the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi amphibs. (LPDs).These were just around 7000t.However,subsequently,the ships were modifed by widening the flight deck opp. the island using a large sponson,which accommodated LCs below the deck extensions.Pic. here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giorg ... e_2016.JPG

My point is that our much larger 30-35,000 multi-role amphibs can very easily have their design modifies to allow for an angled deck which would enable them to operate fxd. wing aircraft ,like SE NLCAs/Sea Gripens as well as JSF type STOVL aircraft using a ski-jump. This would vastly improve their fighting capability with the ability to choose from a variety of aircraft options.

I have earlier also given the post WW2 Essex light carrier mods (similar angled deck provisions) examples ,whee approx . 20 such CVs were modified.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 25 Sep 2017 12:39

US-2 is a nice capability addition to the navy. Aise from SAR and CSAR I see potential for special operations and HADR. It is a fantastic capability to have in IOR.

However, we are overdoing the contract - it can be a simple 6 to max 12 ac purchase in flyway condition from Japan coupled with some offsets. Unless Japan shifts a large part of the mfg to India I don't see any Make in India sense in this purchase.

I would rather go in for more C-130s and C295 ASW variants.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 25 Sep 2017 12:48

Philip, your post has so many holes in it that an elephant could get his annual supply of oxygen. If I wanted to I could enumerate all of them. But then I know better. Hence I will not be able to oblige you on this one.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Sep 2017 12:52

A small purchase of 4 aircraft initially,WITH ASW capability (a must),may be affordable as a pilot acquisition,with more to follow when affordable.Soem spares made locally ,which even the Japanese could buy back for their amphibs,is possible. Unless we intend buying/fielding 30-40 of these beasts,there's little point in manufacturing them at home given their huge cost too! Pl. remember that we are debating the IN';s priorities,where ASW helos are in dire straits. Transports for the IAF are another issue/budget/td.

Darshan,if you can pl. do.One welcomes intelligent debate, otherwise stop your cheap comments.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Sep 2017 16:31

darshhan wrote:The best way to go forward wrt submarines is to order 6 more scorpenes. The ecosystem is all set. Manpower is trained and ready. They are being manufactured at a steady rate. Why not utilise all this for some more nos. of scorpenes? Let us extend the production.

Parrikar had hinted at it, ruing the fact that they are only 35% indigenous and he would like desi content to go up as high as 75%

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Sep 2017 16:34

They planned to order few more of Scorpene but post Scorpene Data leak they abandoned the idea

srin · Post by **srin** » 25 Sep 2017 19:02

The primary problem we have in modernization is our procurement process - both for foreign items and for indigeneous items. Any new procurement will take a long time. And bigger the order, more the time.

What worries me about P75I is that it is being billed as mother of all submarine deals, eeriely similar to MMRCA. Same thing is happening to the Naval helo deal too.
On the other hand, ordering more Sukhois, T-90s, Hawks - there isn't much noise about it. Ordering more of the same is much easier.

So, ordering more Scorpenes or Kilos, and developing a local supply chain and improving modules by ourselves is much more important than ordering a super-duper new one, even if it is much more capable like a Soryu.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Sep 2017 02:48

With Eye On China, India May Buy 'Unarmed' Guardian Drone From US
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/with-ey ... us-1754437

When US Secretary of Defence James Mattis flies out to New Delhi later today, his top priority will be to try and ensure that the new India-US "major defence partnership" ends up being more than a talk-shop on strategic issues of mutual concern.

On top of the agenda is the sale of 22 Sea Guardian remotely-piloted vehicles, a $2 billion sale that could see the Indian Navy acquire the world's most advanced maritime reconnaissance drone. Senior officials monitoring the progress of the deal have told NDTV, "Sea Guardian is top of Secretary Mattis' agenda" and that "maritime security is in common interest due to Chinese aggression with submarines in the Indian ocean, so this platform is a military and diplomatic message to all."

Significantly, NDTV has learned that while the drones India is looking at will come unarmed, they are fully weapons-capable and will come with seven external stations for carriage of payloads. This payload could eventually include Hellfire air-to-surface missiles presently being acquired by the Indian Air Force and Army along with 22 US-built Apache attack helicopters India first contracted in September 2015 in a $3 billion contract. In August, the government cleared the Indian Army's acquisition of six more Apaches which would come armed with the same missile.

In December last year, towards the end of Barack Obama's final term as President, the US Congress passed an amendment called "Enhancing Defence and Security Cooperation with India," which eventually resulted in India being designated a "major defence partner," a designation reaffirmed during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the US in June this year. If a deal for the drones is concluded, this would be the first US sale of the Sea Guardian to a non-NATO partner nation and the first sale of an extremely sensitive US system under India's "major defence partner" status.

The Sea Guardian Multi-Mission Maritime Patrol Aircraft can fly non-stop for 27 hours at an altitude of 50,000 feet. It can be remotely piloted or operate fully autonomous missions. Equipped with a multi-mode maritime radar, the Sea Guardian can observe the movement of Chinese warships and submarines when they surface.

Over the last three years, China has deployed nuclear attack submarines in the Indian Ocean region along with fleet support ships and warships, apparently to fight piracy off the coast of Somalia. The Indian Navy believes that the Chinese presence in these waters has less to do with the fight against lightly armed Somali pirates and more to do with Beijing's elaborate plans to strategically encircle India by establishing ports and military facilities in the Indian Ocean region such as its new logistics hub in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.

Earlier this year, the Commander of the US Pacific Command Admiral Harry Harris said there was nothing to prevent a Chinese aircraft carrier battle group from sailing into the Indian Ocean at any time. According to the Admiral, "I believe India should be concerned about the increased Chinese influence. If you believe there is only a finite amount of influence in the region, then whatever influence that China has is influence that India doesn't have.''

In detecting the movement of Chinese warships across its area of interest, the Indian Navy has been relying heavily on its fleet of US-made Boeing P8-I anti-submarine warfare jets. The Sea Guardian is designed to work with the P8-I and can share information through a datalink. Significantly, both the P8 and the Sea Guardian would be able to share tactical data (such as the location of ships under surveillance) with US platforms in real time if India were to sign the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA). COMCASA allows the secure exchange of military information between US military partner nations.

According to Dr Vivek Lal, Chief Executive at General Atomics, which builds the Sea Guardian, the US willingness to sell the Sea Guardian is a clear indicator of the willingness of Washington to transfer some of its most sensitive military technology to New Delhi. "Not only will this platform enhance India's capabilities in the areas of maritime domain awareness and security, but the interoperability between both strategic partners will contribute to security across the region," said Mr Lal who has been recognised by the University of Cambridge as one of the world's top scientists of the twentieth century.

India's interest in US drones doesn't end with the Sea Guardian. In April this year, the Indian Air Force wrote to the US government looking at the possibility of acquiring the more advanced Avenger armed drone, a high-speed multi-mission Remotely Piloted Aircraft which can carry out "time-sensitive strike missions over land or sea." Powered by a turbofan jet engine, unlike the propeller driven Sea Guardian, groups of Avengers, which can fly at more than 740 kilometres per hour, can be deployed to ``swarm" enemy positions by overwhelming defences by their sheer numbers. According to sources, the "next step after this is 5 squadrons of Avengers for the IAF for which the IAF has written a letter of request to the US government." A deal for Avengers, which could be worth a reported $8 billion "is being considered by the White House for approval after a Guardian deal is signed."

The US Secretary of Defence will be in New Delhi between September 26 and September 28. He will participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at India Gate and will meet PM Modi and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. According the US Department of Defence, "The secretary will emphasize that the United States views India as a valued and influential partner, with broad mutual interests extending well beyond South Asia."

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Sep 2017 04:38

Avenger like drone with Small Hypersonic BRAHMOS in internal bay shall do good in near future combat scenario on Sea and Land.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 26 Sep 2017 05:05

ramana wrote:Rakesh, you got it.
Now why is Chinese and US navy being discussed here?

That is because the pro import lobby wants to mimic the US Navy style of operations. Which is not a bad thing, but you need all the assets in play. We don't even have half the assets and the other half is wanting for capability.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 26 Sep 2017 07:37

Please note the Guardian drone is used by the US Coast Guard. Does not have any offensive weapons and neither an ASW capability. Will it have capabilities to communicate with our Russian origin subs? IRNSS support? Will the US supply armed drones only after we sign CISMOA?

@Rakesh: The pro import lobby does not want to just mimic but ally and willing to be subservient.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Sep 2017 09:08

ShauryaT wrote:Please note the Guardian drone is used by the US Coast Guard. Does not have any offensive weapons and neither an ASW capability.

The MQ-9B has a modular payload - the options selected by the IN will not necessarily be the same as those opted for by the USCG. And while its not possible to put a proper ASW suite on a UAV of its class, GA is integrating sonobuoy capability on the MQ-9. Any piling on of payload will, however, be at the cost of persistence, which is the aircraft's actual USP (40 hrs loiter time in ISR config).

Will it have capabilities to communicate with our Russian origin subs? IRNSS support? Will the US supply armed drones only after we sign CISMOA?

What does CISMOA have to do with weapons? The IN integrated its own datalink & SATCOM with the P-8I; there is no reason why the same wouldn't apply to a UAV acquisition.

Also, Russian-origin sub doesn't mean Russian-origin comm system. And the IN UAVs will pass on int through their ground station which will be plugged into the Navy's C4I system, with the IN subs linked in through INS Kattabomman.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Sep 2017 11:22

I don't think that integrating a US UAV/UCAV platform with an Ru weapon system is going to be an impossible or arduous task.We've already got a heady cocktail of western and eastern weaponry and sensors right from the G class FFGs,to the P-15Bs,etc. Unless these UCAVs,if armed,operate from forward bases like the A&N islands,operating them from the mainland will as Viv has said above ,reduce their endurance signiiicantly.

Secondly,these stealthy UAVs/UCAVs can't carry large missiles like BMos,where even BMos-L planned,around 20ft. in length,is meant for our MKIs (3) and 29Ks (1 or 2),or just one on a Rafale.Taking out land targets like Taliban/ISIS targets with smaller ordnance like Maverick missiles,etc. is another matter. Here,our desi Aura whatever ,the classified UCAV programme with internal weapons bays,may be able to carry out such strikes with larger ordnance.In fact we do need a dedicated bomber both for tactical and strat. reqs.If we acquire a few Backfires as some reports suggest,with their supersonic speed can race to the target/target zone and release LR stand-off ASMs like BMos,Nirbhay,etc.,which will be far more effective in prosecuting enemy maval assets than Sea Gurdians,Predtaors,etc.
Nevertheless,these long-endurance UAVs will definitely give us an enhanced capability for detecting enemy ships,subs and aircraft ingressing and operating in the IOR from Paki and other littoral bases.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 26 Sep 2017 13:02

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 26 Sep 2017 17:13

Reliance Naval looking to bid for six submarines contracts worth Rs 40,000 crore: Anil Ambani

http://www.financialexpress.com/market/ ... ni/871392/

Billionaire Anil-Ambani on Tuesday said that Reliance group’s company Reliance Naval is looking to bid for six submarines contracts worth Rs 40,000 crore. He made the announcement at the Annual General Meeting of its parent company Reliance Infrastructure. Earlier known as Reliance Defence and Engineering Ltd (RDEL), the company was renamed to Reliance Naval to reflect its focus on naval shipbuilding as its principal segment.
Anil Ambani’s led Reliance Infrastructure further plans to raise funds via rights issue to increase its stake in the company. RDEL (now, Reliance Naval), the erstwhile Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering, had reportedly got the bankers’ approval to exit a corporate debt restructuring exercise after reworking its loans worth over Rs 6,000 crore in April.

Speaking at the AGM, Anil Ambani said that India’s 90% of defence needs are imported which cannot continue for long and that it will become an export hub to Airbus and Boeing on very sensitive aircraft parts. Reliance Naval is one of the two private sector shipyards qualified to build large and tactical programmes of the Indian Navy and the Indian Coast Guard. The firm already has the credit being the first private sector company to building a warship in its kitty.

Earlier last year, RDEL (now, Reliance Naval) had got an approval from the Reserve Bank of India to exit the debt restructuring exercise upon refinancing its Rs 6,800 crore worth of loans with a longer maturity of 20 years and a reduced interest rate at 11%. The company’s exit from the debt rejig exercise comes after Reliance Infrastructure bought a 35% equity stake in Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering in December 2015 through an open offer, and reconstituted the board.

At the AGM, Anil Ambani also said that the Reliance Infrastructure is in talks with Japanese companies for the bullet project. The company is also planning to launch Infrastructure Investment Trusts to raise Rs 2,500 crore in the road sector.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 26 Sep 2017 17:32

How this person is going get people who can do the job???

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 26 Sep 2017 19:33

Viv S wrote: The MQ-9B has a modular payload - the options selected by the IN will not necessarily be the same as those opted for by the USCG.

AFAIK, we are specifically getting the Guardian/CG version and not the Reaper. Possibilities are endless and so are denials. Just stating what is actually going to occur.

And while its not possible to put a proper ASW suite on a UAV of its class, GA is integrating sonobuoy capability on the MQ-9. Any piling on of payload will, however, be at the cost of persistence, which is the aircraft's actual USP (40 hrs loiter time in ISR config).

A balance that needs to be right. The bear provided about 11 hours of loiter time with Sonubuoys and integrated sub surface and surface attack capabilities. The time was enough to cover a range from the SA coast to the Indian mainland.

What does CISMOA have to do with weapons? The IN integrated its own datalink & SATCOM with the P-8I; there is no reason why the same wouldn't apply to a UAV acquisition.

[/quote]Subservience and trust is the reason and the ability to monitor our communications. Also asking if it will have a direct VLF communications to subs without land based routing. The Sat ranges for INSAT have range limitations of about 1000 miles, else will have to use GPS or GLONASS.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 26 Sep 2017 20:20

ShauryaT wrote:AFAIK, we are specifically getting the Guardian/CG version and not the Reaper. Possibilities are endless and so are denials. Just stating what is actually going to occur.

The MQ-9B is equipped with a modular payload. The IN is not limited to the USCG's options.

A balance that needs to be right. The bear provided about 11 hours of loiter time with Sonubuoys and integrated sub surface and surface attack capabilities. The time was enough to cover a range from the SA coast to the Indian mainland.

Range & loiter time are different properties. 11 hours may be sufficient for a 150 ton ASW aircraft, but its ridiculous to present it as an alternative to a 4.5 ton UAV (not least because its out-of-production). You deploy an ASW aircraft, the P-8I in the IN's case, where deployment is warranted based on available intelligence, and use the MQ-9s for persistent coverage elsewhere (and for general policing duties in peacetime).

Subservience and trust is the reason and the ability to monitor our communications.

What does it have to do with subservience or trust? Harpoons, torpedoes, depth charges are operational on the P-8I. CBU-105s are operational on the Jaguar. And we have not, to the best of my knowledge, signed the COMCASA yet. I fail to see the relation between a comm protocol sharing agreement and the sale of weaponry to equip existing platforms.

Also asking if it will have a direct VLF communications to subs without land based routing.

VLF communications from a UAV?!! How is that supposed to work?

The Sat ranges for INSAT have range limitations of about 1000 miles, else will have to use GPS or GLONASS.

The Indian counterpart to the GPS & GLONASS is the IRNSS, which is composed of seven satellites with coverage extending from Mongolia to South Africa. The INSAT series perform an entirely different function.

Also, the Navy's Rukmini (GSAT-7) satellite has a range of 2,000 nm (3,600 km).

During the recently concluded Theatre-level Readiness and Operational Exercise (Tropex) in the Bay of Bengal, Rukmini was able to network about 60 ships and 75 aircraft seamlessly. The intention of the Indian Navy is to use this geostationary naval communication and surveillance satellite to cover activities up to the Malacca Straits in the east and the Hormuz Strait to the west. Rukmini has a nearly 2,000 nautical mile 'footprint' over the Indian Ocean Region, another official said. - link

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 26 Sep 2017 20:24

INS Tarasa commissioned into Indian Navy.

INS Tarasa, a Water Jet Fast Attack Craft intended for extended coastal and offshore surveillance and patrolling, was commissioned into the Indian Navy here on Tuesday.

Western Naval Command chief Vice Admiral Girish Luthra, who commissioned the vessel, expressed the hope that “she would discharge her duties with elan and resolve, and bring laurels to the WNC”. He said the vessel, built in Kolkata, is of proven design with good endurance, low draught, high speed and manoeuvrability making her ideal for her primary role of extended coastal and offshore patrolling and surveillance.

Luthra also praised the vessel’s crew and the Warship Overseeing Team, Kolkata, for ensuring that the ship was commissioned after completing all weapons and sensor trials. Besides, the maiden voyage of the vessel from Kolkata to Mumbai in rough weather bore testimony to her seaworthiness, he said. It is the fourth and last of the Water Jet FACs built by Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers, Kolkata.

The first two — INS Tarmugli and INS Tihayu — were commissioned in 2016 and are based in Vishakhapatnam, and the third, INS Tillanchang, was commissioned in March this year and is based in Karwar. These ships are an upgrade of the Car Nicobar Class FACs of the Indian Navy, which were also indigenously designed and built by GRSE, Kolkata.

INS Tarasa is 50 metres long, powered by three waterjets which give it speed of over 35 knots (65 kmph), and is armed with a 30mm main gun and several lights, medium and heavy machine guns. It is commanded by Lt Commander Praveen Kumar. Besides coastal and offshore surveillance, it is described as an ideal platform to render missions like EEZ Patrol, law enforcement, non-military missions like search and rescue, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

Incidentally, this is the second ship to be christened INS Tarasa — the first INS Tarasa which served the Indian Navy from 1999 to 2014 was gifted to the Seychelles Coast Guard.